This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Early in my tenure as a contributor to Life on the Hill, I indicated that there were three kinds of legislation: good legislation, feel-good legislation and look-bad legislation. I have written about the first two but not about the last.

As we are about to delve into the 2015 budget debates, we are always confronted with an “order” regarding the timing and nature of amendments. The order comes from the Speaker and this year included, among other things, a provision that requires amendments relating to local aid increases and Chapter 70 funding increases to not be considered. The reason that those subjects are off-limits for this particular budget is because those pieces of legislation were passed in both the House and the Senate and are currently in conference committees. It has been clear since I have been in the Legislature that leadership is always interested in improving both local aid and Chapter 70 funding as much as possible in the annual budget, but they want to wait and see what the conference committees turn out before addressing the issue further.

Knowing all of that, as we debated the order regarding the budget, legislators filed amendments to the “order” seeking to remove the prohibition regarding amendments to increase local aid and school aid. One can argue that those amendments are in the nature of “look-bad” legislation. I agree that some could argue that the amendments were filed in good faith but, when viewed in the context of the debate by the person filing the amendment, I see “look-bad” written all over it. The debate from the proponent of the amendment was, in part, that in this election year legislators are going to have to defend their rejection of the amendment in their campaigns for re-election. Such rhetoric raises the likelihood that the amendment was filed for the purpose of making legislators look bad.

Contact: 617-722-2090

New resources to prevent domestic violence

By Rep. Brian Mannal

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Domestic violence is a hidden crime. It is easily concealed with make-up and can be covered up by clothing. It is often shrugged off (both by victims and offenders) as an “isolated incident” and buried under promises that it will never happen again. Of course, domestic violence is rarely an isolated incident. In fact, by the time that most victims of domestic violence contact the police for the first time, the bruises and scars of their initial abuse have long since faded along with their hope that it will never happen again.

Sadly, the vast majority of domestic violence incidents are not reported to the police. For some victims, the shame of admitting that their relationship is not perfect is too much to bear. For others, the fear of being subjected to additional abuse prevents them from contacting the authorities. It is for this reason that we need to have strong domestic violence laws that protect victims and hold offenders accountable, and why I am proud to say that (earlier this week) I joined my colleagues in the House of Representatives in passing comprehensive legislation that creates new criminal offenses, increases penalties, and enhances prevention efforts for domestic violence.

The legislation that was passed by the House overhauls the state’s domestic violence laws and establishes a first offense domestic assault and battery charge that enables officials to immediately identify an offender who has a history of domestic violence and take appropriate action to prevent recurrences. Under the legislation, a second offense charge of domestic violence will include cases in which a first offense had resulted in probation or a continuance without a finding. The bill also creates a specific charge of strangulation and suffocation, delays bail for offenders who are arrested to provide victims with time for safety planning, establishes employment leave for victims of domestic violence, and establishes fees for domestic violence offenses that will be invested in the newly created Domestic Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance Fund.

Needless to say, this is not “feel-good” legislation, but rather legislation that will yield good results in the cause of preventing domestic violence and punishing offenders.

Contact: 617-722-2582

Wanted: reasonable compromise on minimum wage

By Rep. Randy Hunt

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Massachusetts House version of the minimum wage bill differs significantly from what was passed by the Senate recently. Here's why I joined the rest of the Cape Cod delegation in voting for this legislation last week:

1) The House bill includes a freeze on the unemployment insurance rates for three years. This eliminates what would have been approximately a 30 percent increase in UI premiums for the average employer. On Tuesday this week, the House voted on this provision separately in order to expedite the freeze.

2) I calculated, using the Northeast Consumer Price Index, a level purchasing power in today's dollars compared with the month that the minimum wage was raised to $3.35 in 1981. To maintain parity, the minimum wage would have to be $9.28 per hour today. The House moves the minimum to $10.50. A more modest increase to $9.50, in line with the inflation rate, was proposed by the Republican caucus and quickly dismissed by the party in power.

3) Finally, there is a wildcard in play that we cannot ignore. A ballot petition may appear in November that raises the minimum wage to $10.50 and increases the tipped minimum to $6.30 (up from today's $2.63, the House's proposal of $3.75, and the Senate's proposal of $5.50). It also automatically ties future minimum wage hikes – inflation drivers themselves – to inflation, as does the Senate bill. That is playing with fire, in my opinion, and quite frankly is an abdication of our responsibility to vote on such important matters.

We need to pass a reasonable compromise lest we end up with a mess on our hands if the ballot petition passes.